Allowed

Sonu Yadav @ Arun v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jun 2022BAIL/3255/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a bail application filed by Sonu Yadav in a murder case punishable under Sections 302, 120-B IPC. The court observed that while the charge sheet was filed based on co-accused statements 14 days after the incident, the case was a fit one for bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties, along with conditions regarding tampering with evidence and attendance in court.

Sonu Yadav @ Arun Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3255 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Yadav @ Arun Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushma Yadav,Hirdesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Singh Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Hirdesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Sonu Yadav @ Arun under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 217 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Jangipur, District- Ghazipur, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Ghazipur vide order dated 15.12.2021.

¶7

Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 24.10.2021 has been lodged against Arvind Yadav and some unknown persons by the brother of the deceased Jitendra Kumar Yadav under Section 302, 120-B I.P.C stating therein that on 24.10.2021 at 10:00 A.M his brother has gone to his shop from his house when he was reached near Jangipur Yadav mod at about 10:55 A.M, some unknown assailants sought fire to his brother. The persons of vicinity on the place of incident took his injured brother by ambulance 108 to Sadar hospital where his brother declared dead. Prior some days of the present incident Arvind Yadav who is brother-in-law of the deceased threatened his brother in a Panchayat for dire consequences because in the said panchayat it was decided that deceased and sister of Arvind Yadav would separate their relation of husband and wife.

¶8

After lodging of the first information report inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 24.10.2021 at 1:30 P.M at mortuary of district hospital Gazipur, postmortem of the body of the deceased is also conducted on 24.10.2021 at 3:40 p.m. As per the postmortem report one fire arm entry wound and one fire arm exit wound were found on the person of the deceased.

¶9

Entry wound was found in the back of head and exit wound was found on left ear canal just backward. No other external injury was found on the person of the deceased.

¶10

After recording the statements of the first informant Surendra Singh Yadav and other prosecution witnesses Shailendra, Janardan, Sunil, Omprakash, another Omprakash and Brijesh Yadav, Abrar and Shiv Kumar under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet on 27.01.2022 against the applicant and and other three persons namely Sonu Yadav @ Arun, Prince Yadav @ Prem Yadav and Rahul Yadav. The applicant was arrested on 07.11.2021.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case after 14 days of the incident with ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the first information report. After recording the second statement of the first informant as well as on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Rahul and Prince, name of the applicant was surfaced in the present case. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession/ or pointing out of the applicant. On the basis of confessional second statement of the co-accused role of presence of the applicant of another motor-cycle or reki has been levelled against the applicant. Except the confessional statement no other evidence with regard to complicity of the present applicant has been collected. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution case the unknown assailants sought fire the deceased at the time of the running motor-cycle but there is no other external injury was found on the person of the deceased.

¶12

The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he has not convicted by any Court in cognizable offence. He has next argued that if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as the learned counsel for the first informant has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie

¶15

appears that;

¶16

(a) the applicant is not named in the first information;

¶17

(b) name of the present applicant has been surfaced on the basis of second statement of the first informant as well as confessional statement of co-accused Rahul and Prince after 14 days of the incident;

¶18

¶19

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶20

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶21

Let applicant, Sonu Yadav @ Arun be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶22

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the

¶25

trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶26

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶27

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶28

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

¶30

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶31

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶32

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶33

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶34

Order Date :- 3.6.2022 PS

¶35

Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2022.06.06 12:13:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu Yadav @ Arun v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Yadav @ Arun v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Pashupati Shah Vs State of U.P and Another

Vishal Kumar Valmiki Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Chatari Bai @ Chapra Devi Vs State of U.P.

Zakir Vs State of U.P and Another

Gulfam Vs State of U.P and 3 Others